I was talking to the fiance's grandpa (who is an awesome guy, BTW, so I'm not trying to pick on him too much) and he said some interesting stuff.

According to him, the best things Kzoo ever had were the "poor farms" where the poor people in the community could go work for government farms and earn a wage, and he was pissed that the government officials stopped providing this service.

Then he mentioned that he was a fan of more people riding their bikes to work, and he thought that the government should start a commission to build more bike paths around the country.

Then he proceeded to bash Obama (just making black jokes, not anything actually intellectual).

Now, I'm not an Obama supporter either, but it amazes me how some people are so "straight party" that they have no clue what anyone stands for...

I think the ability to vote a straight party ticket with one action needs to be eliminated.

I likewise think the media's in cahoots with the and to prevent the emergence of a legitimate 3rd party, forgetting that neither of them were around at the beginning either. Every third party attempt is consistently painted as a "nutball, fringe group" and is denied access to debates, etc... There's something a "fairness doctrine" needs to look at instead of worrying about what Rush Linbaugh says...

So your fiance's grandpa's a racist socialist, I'm not sure what that has to do with straight party voting. I do think either party has a monopoly on racism.

I would like to see changes made to out electoral system ot give alternate parties a reasonable chance.

Uhhh...he's voting republican because he always votes republican, and he's pushing for democratic ideas and pissed because the keep getting rid of those ideas, but he's still voting republican because he's always voted republican...sounds like he's straight party voting to me.

I whole-heartedly agree about the 3rd party thing. CNN had an interview with Bob Bar, and there was a noteable quote in the article: CNN said, "Will he win? No." It's probably true, but the media gives relativly no attention to the 3rd party candidates (so individuals who do not investigate further than one or two news sites can easily miss the candidate entirely), and they spout the general idea that 3rd parties are not worth seriously considering.

I say the only way for anything other than the current system to actually come to be (agreeing with everything said thus far about a real third party) is to go directly to a 4-party system.

Something for the center-left and center-right between the other two. Problem in my mind with third parties is that they tend to be off to a "side" in the current political spectrum, rather than somewhere IN it.

As I see it, the political spectrum is reality and won't change regardless of additional parties, most people's views lie somewhere in that range, so let's simply divide it up a little finer (there's certainly enough of us to go finer than just two divisions, right?).

Basically, if you looked at this election, you could have had something like:

Many people would say that then we might not have a clear winner and the one with the most votes could have just a bit more than 25% of the total vote (of course the electoral system would have to be reworked too, but who doesn't want that?) but I'd argue that it wouldn't be any worse than now when so many people are unhappy with the options that they simply don't vote anyway or are just voting a straight party ticket... the reality of it all is that there's such small turnouts that I don't think the winner is really supported by much more than 25% of the voters anyway.

My $.02

Last edited by bigwalton; July 8th, 2008 at 09:20 AM.
Reason: brain fart

Don't get hung up on who I slotted where, I'm one of the annoyed/aggravated voters that hates the current system where there's no point in caring until the two candidates are official. Therefore I wasn't sure who to slot where.

Ya' know...I was reading an article by Lawrence W. Reed (a dude who wrote several articles...and, I believe, worked for...the Mackinac Center for Public Policy). That being said...he's pretty libertarian in his views...

I'm not a fan of most of his stuff, because, perhaps for the sake of keeping the article short, he doesn't really defend any of his statements/claims, but I thought he had one noteworthy article...

He stated that it is NOT better to have everyone go out and vote!!!

If 25% of registered voters vote (and they actually CARE about it), it is WAAAAAYYYY better than if 100% of the people voted, and 75% were just voting because it's "VOTE OR DIE!!!".

I just never heard it put that way, and I completely agree. The push should be for a better educated voting populace and less of a push on the "JUST VOTE!!!".

Some people hold that stigma that it is the end of democracy when less people vote, but we have at least double the voter turn out nowadays than they did in the washington/adams days (and I'm aware of the reasons why, but that's not the point).

I hope everyone who doesn't know which candidate to pick stays home, so people who care about the matter can have more of an impact.

If 25% of registered voters vote (and they actually CARE about it), it is WAAAAAYYYY better than if 100% of the people voted, and 75% were just voting because it's "VOTE OR DIE!!!".

I just never heard it put that way, and I completely agree. The push should be for a better educated voting populace and less of a push on the "JUST VOTE!!!".

I hope everyone who doesn't know which candidate to pick stays home, so people who care about the matter can have more of an impact.

Agree 100%
Not everyone should be able to vote. Some people have no clue as to what these candidates are all about. I don't want a bunch of uninformed voters going out and making choices for me. I think we need to start testing voters before they can proceed to the ballots.

Ah yes, but is that better than what we have now where it's a large part just party voters going to the polls who'll vote for whomever has or next to their name?

I'd counter with the fact that the current system makes MANY people who would be excellent voters stay home because of the frustration they have with the way things are or the lack of candidates who truly reflect their values (i.e. not wanting to have to choose the lesser of two evils).

IMHO, iF there was a better system that eliminated some of these frustrations, the majority of people who would be showing up to vote would be just the type you'd want to vote.

Agree 100%
Not everyone should be able to vote. Some people have no clue as to what these candidates are all about. I don't want a bunch of uninformed voters going out and making choices for me. I think we need to start testing voters before they can proceed to the ballots.

I believe that is the single most communist post I ever read.

"Test" voters??? How do they pass??? Who decides if they fail??? Will they be able to "Re-test" if they study hard for 3 days before an election???

Don't get me wrong...I wish that more people who actually cast a ballot were more educated about the candidates themselves instead of if they are or , but I'll bet there are MUCH more educated voters than you think.

Just because voters disagree with your point of view or the candidate you support does not mean they are uneducated.

Uhhh...he's voting republican because he always votes republican, and he's pushing for democratic ideas and pissed because the keep getting rid of those ideas, but he's still voting republican because he's always voted republican...sounds like he's straight party voting to me.

"Test" voters??? How do they pass??? Who decides if they fail??? Will they be able to "Re-test" if they study hard for 3 days before an election???

Don't get me wrong...I wish that more people who actually cast a ballot were more educated about the candidates themselves instead of if they are or , but I'll bet there are MUCH more educated voters than you think.

Just because voters disagree with your point of view or the candidate you support does not mean they are uneducated.

There are alot of educated voters in Zimbabwe.

I agree that testing isn't a great idea, especially based on our history in the south of not allowing african americans to vote by putting poll tests, etc into place to keep them from voting.

How fun would it be if the voters had to answer these 3 questions before voting though?

1. Name the three branches of government.

2. Name the two bodies of congress.

3. How many states are in the United States?

Honestly, if they can't answer these 3 questions, what point is there in them voting?

I say the only way for anything other than the current system to actually come to be (agreeing with everything said thus far about a real third party) is to go directly to a 4-party system.

Something for the center-left and center-right between the other two. Problem in my mind with third parties is that they tend to be off to a "side" in the current political spectrum, rather than somewhere IN it.

As I see it, the political spectrum is reality and won't change regardless of additional parties, most people's views lie somewhere in that range, so let's simply divide it up a little finer (there's certainly enough of us to go finer than just two divisions, right?).

Basically, if you looked at this election, you could have had something like:

Many people would say that then we might not have a clear winner and the one with the most votes could have just a bit more than 25% of the total vote (of course the electoral system would have to be reworked too, but who doesn't want that?) but I'd argue that it wouldn't be any worse than now when so many people are unhappy with the options that they simply don't vote anyway or are just voting a straight party ticket... the reality of it all is that there's such small turnouts that I don't think the winner is really supported by much more than 25% of the voters anyway.

My $.02

We've discussed this here before.

There is nothing in our current laws that mandates that there be 2 parties, and in fact when you go to vote in November there will be many candidates from different parties on the ballot. The "Two party system" is just a side effect of our election process. I think the biggest change that would help give an alternate party a chance would be to change from only requiring a candidate to be elected on a plurality (more votes than any other candidate) of vote to requiring a majority (over half of votes cast) of votes to win. If no candidate gets a majority then a runoff election is held between the 2 top vote getters.